• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
2 results

Blythe v. City of San Diego

Docket 3:24-cv-02211, California Southern District Court (Nov. 25, 2024)
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, presiding, Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner
Civil Rights - Other
DivisionSan Diego
Cause42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
Case Type440 Civil Rights - Other
Tags440 Civil Rights, Other, 440 Civil Rights, Other
Plaintiff Don Blythe
Defendant City of San Diego
Plaintiff Blythe
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 17 ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 9 )

Document Blythe v. City of San Diego, 3:24-cv-02211, No. 17 (S.D.Cal. Jan. 14, 2025)
Motion for Preliminary InjunctionDenied
On November 25, 2024, Plaintiff Don Blythe sued the City of San Diego, claiming that the Ordinance violates his free speech rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, on its face and as applied.
Plaintiff attacks the Ordinance’s tailoring by arguing that “the legislative history of the Ordinance contains no evidence of threats to ‘access [to] educational services,’ much less that existing or alternative laws not restricting speech were insufficient to protect access to such services.” ECF No. 9-1 at 6.
Specifically, Plaintiff argues that there is no equivalent to distributing literature, and that the Ordinance severely obstructs this channel of communication because there is “no substitute for being able to approach an individual in order to hand out a leaflet without the encumbrance of seeking consent first.” Id.
While the Supreme Court has noted that obtaining consent is a hindrance to leafletters’ ability to deliver handbills to unwilling recipients, this simple fact did not change the result, as pedestrians are always free to decline such offers anyways.
To this end, Plaintiff relies on Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 466-67 (1987), where the Supreme Court invalidated an ordinance that “criminalize[d] a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech” and accorded the police excessive and unguided discretion in deciding which violators to arrest.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Can’t find a case you think should be here?

Use our supplemental search tool to find dockets that you may not see here. Information on Fees

Start a Supplemental Search